Surrender and Connection to Being

We want to feel happy or in balance. We don’t want to be depressed or dissatisfied. But no matter what the content our present experience is, even if it’s depression, there’s no getting around the fact that even within that depression we are connected to the larger existence, to Being. If we are aware of this fact, well, the world is at our service.

But many of us are out of touch with this fact, so we have desires, such as the desire to be “happy” or “quiet” or “enlightened” or “balanced.” But it’s possible for human beings to get to the point where we naturally realize that these desires appear WITHIN something that is ALREADY present. The depression, the desire to be happy, etc., appears within a more fundamental context: the context is the feeling that we are already connected to Being. That connection to Being already exists before anything else. Thus in a healthy person it supersedes everything else. It’s a touchstone, a wellspring. It can be used to alleviate the desire for enlightenment or happiness. After all, those things are only ideas and desires, and they aren’t enlightenment or happiness!

But what does it mean to say these desires of wanting to be happy, etc., appear within the more fundamental context of Being? It means this: We are always immersed in the present moment. The present moment is the only thing we have control over, and no matter how things may be screwed up in our life story, no matter how bad the problems in our life, the present moment simply IS. Period. It’s not a problem, it IS. It is a solid, brute existence that we can shape in the immediate moment. We can make the right decision, NOW. The present moment is abundantly full, and we can be fully and consciously present in it.

How do we do this? We have the power in the present moment to put less emphasis on the content of our experience (e.g., our desire to be happy or enlightened). We have the power in the present moment to focus our attention and our awareness on the simple FACT THAT we experience the world–we flow–we are already connected to Being or the universe. How do we do this? One way is by letting go of the past, and not giving into worry about the future, and putting our attention in the Now only. Surrender. Let it all go. Once we truly realize this, then when depression arises, or a desire to be happy, quiet, or enlightened, it immediately falls away because through surrender we are convinced that we are “already there.” If we’re convinced that we’re “already there” then we are, in fact, “already there.”

We can become convinced that we are “already there” by realizing that our desire to be “enlightened” or “happy” itself is only an empty idea generated by those very desires. Once we realize this and surrender these desires, we ARE enlightened, or happy, or satisfied! Yes, this is question-begging and a bit like a dog chasing its own tail. If you realize this, welcome to the club.

Nevertheless, we can be awed by existence! It’s an amazing mystery that we are here and are connected to Being. What came “before” the Big Bang? It’s miraculous that we get the chance to exist, and to put less and less identity and attention on the passing forms and ideas and ego, and put more and more attention on simply letting go and surrendering in the present moment and experiencing that sheer fullness of existence, that connection with Being.

Classical Theology vs. Process Theology

Process Theology is a different way to think about God. It is very different from Classical Theology, and it makes much more sense than Classical Theology. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, just trying to make people aware that there is another way to look at reality:

Classical Theology is what we’re all familiar with: God created the world from nothing, controls most things (“What did we do wrong to deserve this…?”), judges souls and sends them to damnation or paradise, is all-powerful (omnipotent), is all-knowing (omniscient), is all good (omnibeneficent), knows the future, in fact, God DETERMINES the future, etc. God runs the whole show, and our role is to try to figure it out God’s will, and hope God is on our side in the end, and hope that God doesn’t have a bad road in store for us in the future. God puts huge obstacles on some people’s paths, while God lets others sail along smoothly. We can’t know or figure out why. That’s just how it is.

But Classical Theology leaves an entire universe of questions unanswered, and even worse, leaves these questions unanswerable even in principle.

One such example is the “Problem of Evil:” It’s a LOGICAL CONTRADICTION to believe that there is an omnipotent and omnibeneficent God, and that evil befalls innocent people in the world. If God was all-powerful and all-good, there’s no way God COULD LOGICALLY permit evil things. And when we say God could not “logically permit” such a thing, and when we say it’s a “logical contradiction,” we mean it in an absolute sense. God cannot logically create a square circle, regardless of God’s infinite power, infinite intelligence, infinite ability and skill, etc. It’s illogical and simply can’t be done by God or anything else. It’s the same with the “problem of evil;” it’s logically impossible for evil to occur, given the meaning of the words “all-good,” “all-powerful,” and “evil.” But clearly evil does occur.

There are a dozen or more fundamental problems like these. These problems are the main cause of atheism today.

Process Theology, on the other hand, conceives God differently from the start, and thus the problems in Classical Theology aren’t found in Process Theology. Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne (and some others throughout history) set this theology out most clearly. The basic idea is that God is not omnipotent. Rather, God genuinely “surrenders” some power to creatures. And because of this, God thus “co-creates” reality along with creatures. This means that God and creatures determine reality together; God doesn’t solely determine someone’s fate. So when someone gets into a car wreck it’s not God’s fault. God is all-good, and all-knowing, and thus God knows you have to replace your windshield wipers. Thus God bombards you with guidance (“replace your windshield wipers…”) and the person ignores it, thus eventually the distorted visibility in the rain causes an accident. God didn’t cause the accident.

God communicates with creatures through what Whitehead called “the divine lure.” At the base of reality, at the sub-sub quantum level if you will, God is continually “feeding” God’s perfect vision of the world to creatures (humans, animals, etc.). We have the ability to pick up on this lure or guidance. “Replace your wipers…Take that job…Don’t take that job…Eat healthy food…Take Elm Street…Treat your co-workers with respect…” Each creature is free to tune into God’s will or to tune God out. In my opinion, the latihan is a way to tune directly into this guidance that Whitehead and Hartshorne talk about.

God isn’t “a being,” but like everything else God is “a becoming.” God is ubiquitous and not locatable in spacetime. God is everywhere, all the time, at the base of reality. This is not Pantheism, BTW. The closest theological view is called Panentheism.

On Process Theology, God didn’t create the universe. The “stuff” of existence (whatever that is) has always existed. Science is a good explanation (although a very limited explanation) of what happened. Our current universe big-banged into existence 15 billion years ago. The wider stuff, “before” our universe was born, and “after” our universe finally dies out, has always existed. Nothing was ever ultimately “created” thus God doesn’t create from nothing (again, it’s entirely illogical and impossible for anything or anyone or any God to create a thing without something with which to create it). There’s no damnation or paradise model, and God doesn’t sit in judgment. God doesn’t control things but guides things and it’s up to creatures to respond to the guidance or not. God is the source of Order and Value in the process. That’s why it’s called “process” theology and “process” philosophy, because there are ultimately no “things” and no “beings” but only “processes” and “becomings.”

God doesn’t know the future because there IS no future to even know. “The future” as an actuality doesn’t exist. All that exists is past and present. God and creatures, together, create the present. The word “future” is just a word and doesn’t point to any kind of reality.

On Process Theology, our task is to be fully in the moment, feeling the divine lure, and dealing with the elements in our experience that work against us actuating that Divine vision. What a HUGE task!!!

Technically speaking, what human beings call “God” is what Whitehead called the three “Formative Elements:” Creativity, Potentiality, and God. The Formative Elements can’t exist apart from each other. But they are not “actual” thus they don’t “exist” like a chair or table exists. (Thus, arguably, there is no issue or dispute about “whether God exists” like there is in Classical Theology.) The Formative Elements are non-actual and non-temporal. Again, I can’t argue this here, but when you do a deep logical analysis of what is actual and temporal, you see there must be something which is non-actual and non-temporal. Whitehead does most of this analysis in a small book called “Religion in the Making.”

Just some thoughts this Saturday night.

Aloha!

“The God Delusion”

Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” was disappointing.  Not because I’m a theist.  The book never came close to criticizing any of my theological ideas.  Rather, it was disappointing for at least four reasons: 1) There is little actual theology in the book so little substantive theological critique, 2) He’s attacking a silly caricature of religion using fundamentalists like Pat Robertson so again no substantial argument (it’s also hard to tell when he’s joking and when not), 3) He doesn’t address any type of revisionist theology (thus from the process theism point of view the book is irrelevant), and 4) He has a radical, dogmatic, unsophisticated, and uncompromising attitude and thus can’t truly engage his subject.

First, Dawkins has written a book ostensibly about theology and science, but clearly there is little theology in this book.  He quotes Luther, Aquinas, etc., but has NO CLUE of the context.  It’s as if he hasn’t even read the material he’s quoting.  Analogy: commission Benny Hill (I think he’s dead now, but never mind) to write a book on theology, and then read it.  You say, “But Benny Hill knows nothing about theology!”  Exactly.  The discussion that pushed me over the edge (in chapter seven) was one wherein Dawkins was relating how ignorant religion is because of Pat Robertson’s view that hurricane Katrina was caused by God because a lesbian comedian (Ellen DeGeneres) lives in New Orleans.  According to Roberts, God hates lesbians.  Dawkins then thinks this is a nail in the coffin of religion.  Dawkins is good at talking about science, but his arguments about theology are seriously uninformed.  Speaking of arguments, the book is light on actual arguments but heavy on rhetoric.

Second, he has a comedic writing style in this book, and yes it’s engaging, but it’s hard to tell when he is joking because sometimes when he’s clearly not joking he makes ludicrously funny statements.  In chapter two he claims theology isn’t even a discipline.  Anyone, a scientist, a gardener, a chef, can comment on theology just as authoritatively as any “theologian” because it’s all commentary about silliness anyway. He can’t be taken as a serious intellectual when he makes claims like this.  In chapter three a discussion of Pascal’s Wager shows Dawkins entirely misses the mark as he argues it’s better to bet God doesn’t exist, because then you don’t have to “squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him.”  The problem with this is, he’s serious.  Oh yes professor, the four or five billion religious persons on the planet are all deluded, running around sacrificing calves and virgins to God, and fighting in wars.  By the way, I’m pointing out specific chapters wherein he mentions these ludicrous ideas, but these same ideas infect the entire book.

Third, the book is shallow in that it addresses only classical theism and leaves revisionist and natural theology untouched.  The focus is clearly and exclusively on supernaturalism.  Take his definition of God from page 52: “A superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it including us.”  I almost fell off my chair.  From a process theology point of view, this definition is ludicrous.  Every idea in the definition, other than “intelligence,” is false.  Talk about the ULTIMATE straw man!  With a definition like this, it’s fairly easy to then go ahead and rip classical theology to shreds.  Dawkins’ entire book is directed at classical theism, and worse, at radical religious fundamentalist classical theism.  Why doesn’t he address more sophisticated revisionist theologies?  Because, he says on p. 15, they are “numerically negligible.”  Sorry professor, you can’t ignore an entire branch of scholarship which addresses the main points of your book and expect to be taken seriously.  Thus, from the point of view of any natural theology, and certainly from the viewpoint of process theology, his argument against religion is irrelevant.

Finally, throughout the whole book we see that Dawkins has a strange friendship with the radical religious fundamentalists he criticizes.  The commonality he shares with them is the same radical, dogmatic, unsophisticated, and uncompromising attitude.  The difference is he’s at the other end of the spectrum by promoting atheism rather than fundamentalist classical theism. For Dawkins, all of religion is simply “wishful thinking,” God is equated with an “orbiting teapot” (from Russell), a “tooth fairy,” and a “Flying Spaghetti Monster.”  Like the religious fundamentalists, Dawkins employs an unsophisticated and even crude approach that is quite disappointing.

Next Read:  “The Dawkins Delusion” by McGrath.

The End of History–We Know It All?

Another thought provoking Noon Tide Query by Troythulu:  “What doctrine or belief system do you consider to be the most disturbing? The most dangerous?”

Both disturbing and dangerous are folks who think we’re at the end of history–we know it all!

They think “X” can’t exist because science says it can’t (or religion says it can’t–take your pick).  Each epoch thinks they’re at the end of history and each time they’ve been wrong.  There have been at least 5 scientific paradigms since ancient Greece, and the final conclusions of each one have eventually been shown to be incomplete.  Not necessarily false, although in many cases they have, but at the very least incomplete.   In the beginning of the 20th century, most scientists were UTTERLY CONVINCED materialism was true.  By 1950 almost no physicist believed it.  Not only do we now know about the conceptual problems with materialism, but the logical problems alone sent the materialists packing.  Speaking of logic, rather than suspend judgment about something which is logically possible (God, teleportation, etc.), closed-minded people using the flavor-of-the-month epistemological and ontological view, claim to know “X” it’s not possible.  Why?  Blind faith.  For example, most physicists of the 1950’s and 1960’s were totally against the existence of quarks because their limited view of science told them “nothing could be smaller than a proton.”  A broader view of science dictated otherwise, nay, LOGIC itself dictated otherwise, and finally by the mid-1970’s most scientists were on board with quarks.  But for 20 years denial ruled the day because people thought they knew it all–they thought they were at the end of history and that we had it all wrapped up.  Think again, Feynman, et al!!!  (Feynman was BRILLIANT, don’t get me wrong, but history proved his earlier view to be completely in error because he refused to open his mind to wider possibilities.)

Put differently, if you think “X” is impossible, then wait.  Maybe 50 years, maybe 500, but sooner or later our understanding of reality will grow to the point where “X” is shown.  Again, as long as it’s logical.  E.g., an all-good, omnipotent God is illogical, so it’s useless to posit it.  But that doesn’t mean God isn’t possible, of course.  Like Shawn says on the TV program “Psyche” …  Wait For It…..  Wait For It……  !!!

Aloha!

Truth & the Atheist-Theist debate (Vid)

Dr. Corey Anton posted a great vid (9 min.) entitled, Truth & The Atheist-Theist Debate.  I especially enjoyed the comments about the misguided skeptical attitude.  There’s good skepticism (we can all use a healthy dose of this continually), but then there’s the skepticism which bashes on ridiculous dogmatism.  Corey says, When you were two years old you told your parents, “2+2 = 4!” and they applauded you.  Good little girl/boy!  But now we’re adults.  We don’t get to say: “The world was NOT created in 7 days and created ex nihilo” and think we’ve said something substantial or revealing or profound!

Another interesting point is the erroneous over-identification of the scientific attitude with the atheistic and skeptical attitudes.  Too many folks claim they’re scientists because they have atheistic attitudes!  Hey, let’s check in with reality every now and then. Aloha!

Core Doctrine of Process Philosophy #1 (of 10)

Over 10 blog entries, I will set out the 10 Core Doctrines of process philosophy (of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne), as given by the process philosopher and theologian David Griffin.

Core Doctrine #1:  Process integrates “…moral, aesthetic, and religious intuitions with the most general doctrines of the sciences into a self-consistent worldview [and considers this] as one of the central tasks of philosophy in our time.”  From: Griffin, David R.  “Reenchantment Without Supernaturalism” (p. 5)

Another way to say this is the integration of science and religion; to be able to put religion in a context that someone who takes science seriously may countenance, and to be able to put science in a context that someone with religious beliefs can countenance.

#1: (TGT): Let’s Begin…Two Great Truths: A New Synthesis of Scientific Naturalism and Christian Faith (TGT)

This is a discussion of David Ray Griffin’s book: “Two Great Truths: A New Synthesis of Scientific Naturalism and Christian Faith” (here identified by “TGT”) with a foreward by Howard J. Van Till.

It’s all over the media, in synagogues, mosques, churches, scientific labs, and universities everywhere: there’s gigantic conflict between science and religion.  Well, of course there is!  It’s a huge and direct conflict, after all, EVERYBODY knows it is.  (Argumentum ad Populum)  Well, David Ray Griffin (and process philosophy/theology in general) would rather delve deeper into both science and religion and take a more informed, synoptic view.

Continue reading

#2: (MOS) Breif Summary

Chapter 1 deals with Immanuel Kant.  It “…presents Kant’s philosophy as a foundation for understanding…Heidegger and Whitehead.” (MOS 2)  Smith then delineates his new way of reading Kant as a postmodern thinker, which we’ll get to when we look directly at chapter 1.

Chapter 2 sets out Heidegger’s project.  Heidegger rethinks the analysis of a knowing, substantial subject, as it has been taken for most of western history, and transforms it via an existential analysis of “Dasein.”  This summary of Heidegger I’m sure readers will find complete-but it is very compact (but this is Heidegger-there’s probably no way around this).

Continue reading

#1: (MOS) Let’s Begin: Myths of the Self (MOS)

This series of posts is about Dr. Olav’s Smith’s famous (or should be famous) book: Myths of the Self: Narrative Identity and Postmodern Metaphysics (called MOS here).  (Click here for partial text at Google Books).  Dr. Smith is a lecturer at California State University, Chico.  The book is based on Smith’s doctoral dissertation under David Ray Griffin at The Center for Process Studies at Claremont in Los Angeles, CA.

William Desmond, Director of the International Philosophy Program at  KU Leuven says:  “This is a very intelligent and engaging essay in constructive postmodern metaphysics.  Olav Smith brings Whitehead into provocative and fruitful dialogue with the philosophies of Kant, Heidegger, and Ricoeur.  The diverse discussions are marked by many illuminating and surprising connections.”

Continue reading

Reinventing the Sacred

Kaufmannnnsacred

TROYTHULU turned me onto this:

“…The unfolding of the universe – biotic, and perhaps abiotic too – appears to be partially beyond natural law. In its place is a ceaseless creativity, with no supernatural creator. If, as a result of this creativity, we cannot know what will happen, then reason, the Enlightenment’s highest human virtue, is an insufficient guide to living our lives. We must use reason, emotion, intuition, all that our evolution has brought us. But that means understanding our full humanity: we need Einstein and Shakespeare in the same room.  Yet what is more awesome: to believe that God created everything in six days, or to believe that the biosphere came into being on its own, with no creator, and partially lawlessly? I find the latter proposition so stunning, so worthy of awe and respect, that I am happy to accept this natural creativity in the universe as a reinvention of ‘God’.”

From: “Reinventing the Sacred” by Stuart A. Kauffman

This is nice, except I question the antirationalistic slant, as it’s perfectly reasonable to employ emotion and intuition.